Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 511 | control, N = 251 | treatment, N = 261 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 51 | 51.12 ± 12.43 (25 - 74) | 50.50 ± 13.00 (25 - 74) | 51.71 ± 12.08 (32 - 72) | 0.732 |
gender | 51 | 0.322 | |||
f | 34 (67%) | 15 (60%) | 19 (73%) | ||
m | 17 (33%) | 10 (40%) | 7 (27%) | ||
occupation | 51 | 0.975 | |||
day_training | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 5 (9.8%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (7.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
other | 2 (3.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
part_time | 9 (18%) | 5 (20%) | 4 (15%) | ||
retired | 13 (25%) | 6 (24%) | 7 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
unemploy | 13 (25%) | 6 (24%) | 7 (27%) | ||
marital | 51 | >0.999 | |||
divore | 5 (9.8%) | 3 (12%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
married | 11 (22%) | 5 (20%) | 6 (23%) | ||
none | 29 (57%) | 14 (56%) | 15 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (5.9%) | 2 (8.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
widow | 3 (5.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
edu | 51 | 0.916 | |||
bachelor | 14 (27%) | 6 (24%) | 8 (31%) | ||
diploma | 9 (18%) | 6 (24%) | 3 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (7.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
primary | 4 (7.8%) | 1 (4.0%) | 3 (12%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (7.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 13 (25%) | 7 (28%) | 6 (23%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
fam_income | 51 | 0.673 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (5.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (8.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (9.8%) | 2 (8.0%) | 3 (12%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (4.0%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (8.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (18%) | 6 (24%) | 3 (12%) | ||
2001_4000 | 6 (12%) | 3 (12%) | 3 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 7 (14%) | 3 (12%) | 4 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (12%) | 3 (12%) | 3 (12%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (7.8%) | 1 (4.0%) | 3 (12%) | ||
below_2000 | 5 (9.8%) | 1 (4.0%) | 4 (15%) | ||
medication | 51 | 42 (82%) | 21 (84%) | 21 (81%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 51 | 15.90 ± 12.38 (0 - 56) | 17.66 ± 13.98 (1 - 56) | 14.21 ± 10.63 (0 - 35) | 0.326 |
onset_age | 51 | 35.22 ± 12.98 (15 - 62) | 32.85 ± 11.65 (16 - 55) | 37.50 ± 14.00 (15 - 62) | 0.204 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 511 | control, N = 251 | treatment, N = 261 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 51 | 3.31 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.24 ± 1.33 (1 - 5) | 3.38 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.682 |
recovery_stage_b | 51 | 18.18 ± 2.70 (9 - 23) | 18.28 ± 2.85 (9 - 23) | 18.08 ± 2.59 (14 - 23) | 0.791 |
ras_confidence | 51 | 30.61 ± 4.78 (19 - 40) | 30.32 ± 4.34 (19 - 40) | 30.88 ± 5.23 (20 - 39) | 0.677 |
ras_willingness | 51 | 12.33 ± 1.93 (7 - 15) | 12.36 ± 1.70 (9 - 15) | 12.31 ± 2.15 (7 - 15) | 0.924 |
ras_goal | 51 | 17.71 ± 2.87 (12 - 24) | 17.64 ± 2.86 (12 - 23) | 17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 0.874 |
ras_reliance | 51 | 13.39 ± 3.03 (8 - 20) | 13.20 ± 2.80 (8 - 18) | 13.58 ± 3.28 (8 - 20) | 0.661 |
ras_domination | 51 | 10.06 ± 2.34 (3 - 15) | 10.72 ± 1.86 (7 - 15) | 9.42 ± 2.59 (3 - 14) | 0.046 |
symptom | 51 | 29.88 ± 9.83 (14 - 56) | 29.12 ± 8.69 (14 - 45) | 30.62 ± 10.93 (15 - 56) | 0.592 |
slof_work | 51 | 22.71 ± 4.74 (10 - 30) | 23.04 ± 4.53 (15 - 30) | 22.38 ± 5.00 (10 - 30) | 0.627 |
slof_relationship | 51 | 25.90 ± 5.87 (11 - 35) | 25.88 ± 6.35 (13 - 35) | 25.92 ± 5.51 (11 - 35) | 0.979 |
satisfaction | 51 | 20.67 ± 6.76 (5 - 30) | 19.32 ± 6.41 (5 - 29) | 21.96 ± 6.95 (5 - 30) | 0.165 |
mhc_emotional | 51 | 11.33 ± 3.63 (4 - 18) | 10.96 ± 3.10 (6 - 17) | 11.69 ± 4.10 (4 - 18) | 0.476 |
mhc_social | 51 | 14.84 ± 5.02 (6 - 26) | 15.12 ± 5.03 (7 - 26) | 14.58 ± 5.10 (6 - 23) | 0.704 |
mhc_psychological | 51 | 22.10 ± 6.17 (6 - 36) | 21.72 ± 5.98 (10 - 33) | 22.46 ± 6.45 (6 - 36) | 0.673 |
resilisnce | 51 | 16.92 ± 4.68 (6 - 25) | 16.68 ± 4.67 (6 - 24) | 17.15 ± 4.76 (7 - 25) | 0.721 |
social_provision | 51 | 13.65 ± 3.18 (5 - 20) | 13.40 ± 2.89 (8 - 20) | 13.88 ± 3.48 (5 - 19) | 0.592 |
els_value_living | 51 | 17.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 23) | 16.88 ± 2.49 (12 - 22) | 17.50 ± 3.49 (5 - 23) | 0.470 |
els_life_fulfill | 51 | 13.00 ± 3.34 (4 - 18) | 12.08 ± 3.28 (5 - 17) | 13.88 ± 3.22 (4 - 18) | 0.053 |
els | 51 | 30.20 ± 5.66 (9 - 40) | 28.96 ± 4.70 (20 - 36) | 31.38 ± 6.31 (9 - 40) | 0.127 |
social_connect | 51 | 26.78 ± 9.72 (8 - 48) | 26.96 ± 8.59 (8 - 45) | 26.62 ± 10.87 (8 - 48) | 0.901 |
shs_agency | 51 | 14.22 ± 4.74 (3 - 20) | 13.60 ± 4.51 (3 - 20) | 14.81 ± 4.97 (3 - 20) | 0.369 |
shs_pathway | 51 | 16.57 ± 3.84 (4 - 22) | 15.96 ± 3.65 (8 - 22) | 17.15 ± 4.01 (4 - 22) | 0.272 |
shs | 51 | 30.78 ± 8.00 (7 - 42) | 29.56 ± 7.75 (14 - 41) | 31.96 ± 8.20 (7 - 42) | 0.288 |
esteem | 51 | 12.53 ± 1.25 (10 - 15) | 12.64 ± 1.19 (10 - 14) | 12.42 ± 1.33 (10 - 15) | 0.542 |
mlq_search | 51 | 15.25 ± 3.30 (3 - 21) | 15.12 ± 3.24 (6 - 21) | 15.38 ± 3.41 (3 - 20) | 0.778 |
mlq_presence | 51 | 13.84 ± 4.03 (3 - 21) | 14.16 ± 3.16 (6 - 20) | 13.54 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 0.587 |
mlq | 51 | 29.10 ± 6.72 (6 - 41) | 29.28 ± 6.19 (12 - 40) | 28.92 ± 7.32 (6 - 41) | 0.852 |
empower | 51 | 19.86 ± 4.31 (6 - 28) | 19.76 ± 3.87 (11 - 24) | 19.96 ± 4.77 (6 - 28) | 0.869 |
ismi_resistance | 51 | 14.80 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 14.84 ± 2.29 (12 - 19) | 14.77 ± 3.28 (5 - 20) | 0.929 |
ismi_discrimation | 51 | 11.29 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 12.20 ± 3.03 (5 - 18) | 10.42 ± 3.15 (5 - 19) | 0.046 |
sss_affective | 51 | 9.78 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 9.23 ± 4.62 (3 - 18) | 0.337 |
sss_behavior | 51 | 9.57 ± 4.29 (3 - 18) | 10.28 ± 4.28 (3 - 18) | 8.88 ± 4.27 (3 - 18) | 0.250 |
sss_cognitive | 51 | 8.14 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 8.20 ± 4.19 (3 - 18) | 8.08 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 0.917 |
sss | 51 | 27.49 ± 11.69 (9 - 54) | 28.84 ± 10.74 (9 - 54) | 26.19 ± 12.61 (9 - 54) | 0.424 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.24 | 0.236 | 2.78, 3.70 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.145 | 0.330 | -0.502, 0.792 | 0.663 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.654 | 0.337 | -0.007, 1.31 | 0.064 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.263 | 0.476 | -1.20, 0.670 | 0.585 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.3 | 0.552 | 17.2, 19.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.203 | 0.774 | -1.72, 1.31 | 0.794 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.012 | 0.693 | -1.35, 1.37 | 0.986 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.422 | 0.979 | -1.50, 2.34 | 0.670 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 1.035 | 28.3, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.565 | 1.450 | -2.28, 3.41 | 0.698 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.727 | 1.191 | -1.61, 3.06 | 0.547 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.577 | 1.683 | -3.88, 2.72 | 0.734 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.387 | 11.6, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.052 | 0.542 | -1.11, 1.01 | 0.923 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.795 | 0.439 | -1.66, 0.066 | 0.082 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.988 | 0.621 | -0.228, 2.20 | 0.124 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.622 | 16.4, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.129 | 0.871 | -1.58, 1.84 | 0.883 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.728 | 0.726 | -2.15, 0.695 | 0.325 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.954 | 1.026 | -1.06, 2.96 | 0.360 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.593 | 12.0, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.377 | 0.831 | -1.25, 2.00 | 0.652 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.078 | 0.515 | -1.09, 0.931 | 0.881 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.24 | 0.728 | -0.184, 2.67 | 0.102 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.464 | 9.81, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.30 | 0.649 | -2.57, -0.024 | 0.050 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.475 | 0.688 | -1.82, 0.874 | 0.495 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.29 | 0.971 | -0.617, 3.19 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.1 | 1.999 | 25.2, 33.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.50 | 2.799 | -3.99, 6.98 | 0.595 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.798 | 1.366 | -3.48, 1.88 | 0.565 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.50 | 1.932 | -5.29, 2.28 | 0.445 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.0 | 0.953 | 21.2, 24.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.655 | 1.334 | -3.27, 1.96 | 0.625 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.267 | 0.830 | -1.89, 1.36 | 0.751 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.352 | 1.173 | -2.65, 1.95 | 0.767 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.9 | 1.203 | 23.5, 28.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.043 | 1.684 | -3.26, 3.34 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.47 | 1.221 | -3.86, 0.925 | 0.241 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.15 | 1.725 | -2.23, 4.53 | 0.513 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 1.397 | 16.6, 22.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.64 | 1.956 | -1.19, 6.48 | 0.182 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.33 | 1.650 | -0.906, 5.56 | 0.170 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.76 | 2.332 | -6.33, 2.81 | 0.458 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.737 | 9.52, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.732 | 1.032 | -1.29, 2.75 | 0.481 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.898 | 0.700 | -0.474, 2.27 | 0.212 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.48 | 0.990 | -3.42, 0.462 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 1.073 | 13.0, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.543 | 1.503 | -3.49, 2.40 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.39 | 1.235 | -1.03, 3.81 | 0.271 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.06 | 1.745 | -4.48, 2.36 | 0.548 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.7 | 1.315 | 19.1, 24.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.742 | 1.841 | -2.87, 4.35 | 0.689 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.22 | 1.462 | -1.65, 4.08 | 0.413 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.89 | 2.067 | -5.94, 2.16 | 0.368 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.901 | 14.9, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.474 | 1.262 | -2.00, 2.95 | 0.709 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.911 | 0.971 | -0.992, 2.81 | 0.358 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.422 | 1.372 | -2.27, 3.11 | 0.761 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.617 | 12.2, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.485 | 0.865 | -1.21, 2.18 | 0.577 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.477 | 0.653 | -1.76, 0.803 | 0.472 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.21 | 0.923 | -0.599, 3.02 | 0.202 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.607 | 15.7, 18.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.620 | 0.850 | -1.05, 2.29 | 0.468 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.659 | 0.667 | -0.647, 1.97 | 0.332 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.055 | 0.942 | -1.79, 1.90 | 0.954 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.637 | 10.8, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.80 | 0.892 | 0.056, 3.55 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.50 | 0.703 | 0.125, 2.88 | 0.043 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.12 | 0.994 | -3.07, 0.830 | 0.272 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.073 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 1.120 | 26.8, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.42 | 1.568 | -0.649, 5.50 | 0.128 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.12 | 1.181 | -0.193, 4.44 | 0.084 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.03 | 1.670 | -4.30, 2.24 | 0.542 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.052 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.912 | 23.2, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.345 | 2.677 | -5.59, 4.90 | 0.898 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.80 | 1.302 | -0.748, 4.35 | 0.180 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.356 | 1.840 | -3.96, 3.25 | 0.848 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.951 | 11.7, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 1.333 | -1.40, 3.82 | 0.369 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.494 | 0.957 | -1.38, 2.37 | 0.611 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.60 | 1.352 | -1.05, 4.25 | 0.249 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.745 | 14.5, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 1.044 | -0.852, 3.24 | 0.258 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.518 | 0.751 | -0.954, 1.99 | 0.497 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.005 | 1.062 | -2.08, 2.09 | 0.997 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.577 | 26.5, 32.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.40 | 2.208 | -1.93, 6.73 | 0.282 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.930 | 1.490 | -1.99, 3.85 | 0.539 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.67 | 2.106 | -2.46, 5.79 | 0.437 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.240 | 12.2, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.217 | 0.337 | -0.877, 0.443 | 0.522 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.905 | 0.435 | 0.053, 1.76 | 0.041 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.419 | 0.613 | -1.62, 0.783 | 0.496 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.090 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.659 | 13.8, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.265 | 0.923 | -1.54, 2.07 | 0.775 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.403 | 0.946 | -1.45, 2.26 | 0.674 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.608 | 1.336 | -3.23, 2.01 | 0.653 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.2 | 0.794 | 12.6, 15.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.622 | 1.112 | -2.80, 1.56 | 0.578 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.647 | 0.944 | -1.20, 2.50 | 0.499 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.012 | 1.333 | -2.60, 2.63 | 0.993 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.348 | 26.6, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.357 | 1.888 | -4.06, 3.34 | 0.851 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.04 | 1.722 | -2.34, 4.41 | 0.553 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.593 | 2.433 | -5.36, 4.17 | 0.809 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.843 | 18.1, 21.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.202 | 1.181 | -2.11, 2.52 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.327 | 0.550 | -0.750, 1.40 | 0.558 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.044 | 0.777 | -1.48, 1.57 | 0.956 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.527 | 13.8, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.071 | 0.738 | -1.52, 1.37 | 0.924 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.613 | 0.721 | -0.800, 2.03 | 0.403 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.460 | 1.019 | -2.46, 1.54 | 0.655 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.635 | 11.0, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.78 | 0.889 | -3.52, -0.035 | 0.050 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.19 | 0.692 | -2.54, 0.171 | 0.098 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.34 | 0.978 | -0.580, 3.26 | 0.183 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.820 | 8.75, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.13 | 1.148 | -3.38, 1.12 | 0.330 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.048 | 0.593 | -1.11, 1.21 | 0.936 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.344 | 0.838 | -1.99, 1.30 | 0.686 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.833 | 8.65, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.40 | 1.167 | -3.68, 0.892 | 0.237 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.713 | 0.713 | -2.11, 0.683 | 0.327 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.716 | 1.007 | -1.26, 2.69 | 0.484 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.20 | 0.843 | 6.55, 9.85 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.123 | 1.180 | -2.44, 2.19 | 0.917 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.686 | 0.697 | -0.680, 2.05 | 0.336 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.880 | 0.986 | -2.81, 1.05 | 0.382 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 2.325 | 24.3, 33.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.65 | 3.257 | -9.03, 3.74 | 0.420 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.069 | 1.559 | -2.99, 3.12 | 0.965 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.500 | 2.204 | -4.82, 3.82 | 0.823 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.24 (95% CI [2.78, 3.70], t(67) = 13.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.79], t(67) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-6.91e-03, 1.31], t(67) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-5.92e-03, 1.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.67], t(67) = -0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.28 (95% CI [17.20, 19.36], t(67) = 33.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.31], t(67) = -0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.37], t(67) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.42e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.34], t(67) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.32 (95% CI [28.29, 32.35], t(67) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.28, 3.41], t(67) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.06], t(67) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-3.88, 2.72], t(67) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.60, 13.12], t(67) = 31.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.01], t(67) = -0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.07], t(67) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.20], t(67) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.64 (95% CI [16.42, 18.86], t(67) = 28.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.84], t(67) = 0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.15, 0.69], t(67) = -1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.96], t(67) = 0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.04, 14.36], t(67) = 22.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.00], t(67) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.93], t(67) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.67], t(67) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.89])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.72 (95% CI [9.81, 11.63], t(67) = 23.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.57, -0.02], t(67) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.09, -0.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.87], t(67) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.19], t(67) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [25.20, 33.04], t(67) = 14.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-3.99, 6.98], t(67) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.88], t(67) = -0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-5.29, 2.28], t(67) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.04 (95% CI [21.17, 24.91], t(67) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-3.27, 1.96], t(67) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.36], t(67) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.65, 1.95], t(67) = -0.30, p = 0.764; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.88 (95% CI [23.52, 28.24], t(67) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-3.26, 3.34], t(67) = 0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = 7.28e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.86, 0.92], t(67) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-2.23, 4.53], t(67) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.32 (95% CI [16.58, 22.06], t(67) = 13.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.64, 95% CI [-1.19, 6.48], t(67) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-0.91, 5.56], t(67) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-6.33, 2.81], t(67) = -0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.96 (95% CI [9.52, 12.40], t(67) = 14.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.75], t(67) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.27], t(67) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-3.42, 0.46], t(67) = -1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.02, 17.22], t(67) = 14.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.49, 2.40], t(67) = -0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 3.81], t(67) = 1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.70])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-4.48, 2.36], t(67) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.72 (95% CI [19.14, 24.30], t(67) = 16.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.87, 4.35], t(67) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.65, 4.08], t(67) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.62])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.89, 95% CI [-5.94, 2.16], t(67) = -0.92, p = 0.360; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.68 (95% CI [14.91, 18.45], t(67) = 18.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.00, 2.95], t(67) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.81], t(67) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-2.27, 3.11], t(67) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.19, 14.61], t(67) = 21.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.21, 2.18], t(67) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.80], t(67) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 3.02], t(67) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.98])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [15.69, 18.07], t(67) = 27.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.29], t(67) = 0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.97], t(67) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.79, 1.90], t(67) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.08 (95% CI [10.83, 13.33], t(67) = 18.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [0.06, 3.55], t(67) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.02, 1.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [0.13, 2.88], t(67) = 2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.04, 0.87])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.07, 0.83], t(67) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [26.77, 31.15], t(67) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.65, 5.50], t(67) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.94])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 4.44], t(67) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-4.30, 2.24], t(67) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.21, 30.71], t(67) = 14.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-5.59, 4.90], t(67) = -0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [-0.75, 4.35], t(67) = 1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.96, 3.25], t(67) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.60 (95% CI [11.74, 15.46], t(67) = 14.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.40, 3.82], t(67) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.37], t(67) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-1.05, 4.25], t(67) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.50, 17.42], t(67) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.85, 3.24], t(67) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.99], t(67) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.61e-03, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.09], t(67) = 4.35e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 1.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [26.47, 32.65], t(67) = 18.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.40, 95% CI [-1.93, 6.73], t(67) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-1.99, 3.85], t(67) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-2.46, 5.79], t(67) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.64 (95% CI [12.17, 13.11], t(67) = 52.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.44], t(67) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [0.05, 1.76], t(67) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.04, 1.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.78], t(67) = -0.68, p = 0.494; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.83, 16.41], t(67) = 22.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.07], t(67) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.26], t(67) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.70])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.23, 2.01], t(67) = -0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.16 (95% CI [12.60, 15.72], t(67) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-2.80, 1.56], t(67) = -0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.20, 2.50], t(67) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.63], t(67) = 8.85e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 3.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.28 (95% CI [26.64, 31.92], t(67) = 21.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-4.06, 3.34], t(67) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-2.34, 4.41], t(67) = 0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.67])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-5.36, 4.17], t(67) = -0.24, p = 0.807; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.76 (95% CI [18.11, 21.41], t(67) = 23.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.52], t(67) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.40], t(67) = 0.60, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.57], t(67) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.81, 15.87], t(67) = 28.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.37], t(67) = -0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.03], t(67) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.54], t(67) = -0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [10.96, 13.44], t(67) = 19.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-3.52, -0.03], t(67) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.07, -0.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.54, 0.17], t(67) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.58, 3.26], t(67) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.36 (95% CI [8.75, 11.97], t(67) = 12.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.12], t(67) = -0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.21], t(67) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.30], t(67) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.28 (95% CI [8.65, 11.91], t(67) = 12.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-3.68, 0.89], t(67) = -1.20, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.68], t(67) = -1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.69], t(67) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.20 (95% CI [6.55, 9.85], t(67) = 9.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.44, 2.19], t(67) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.05], t(67) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.81, 1.05], t(67) = -0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [24.28, 33.40], t(67) = 12.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.65, 95% CI [-9.03, 3.74], t(67) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.99, 3.12], t(67) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 5.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-4.82, 3.82], t(67) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 232.392 | 239.264 | -113.196 | 226.392 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 233.458 | 247.201 | -110.729 | 221.458 | 4.935 | 3 | 0.177 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 347.478 | 354.349 | -170.739 | 341.478 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 353.048 | 366.791 | -170.524 | 341.048 | 0.430 | 3 | 0.934 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 435.900 | 442.772 | -214.950 | 429.900 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 441.401 | 455.144 | -214.700 | 429.401 | 0.499 | 3 | 0.919 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 294.814 | 301.685 | -144.407 | 288.814 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 297.225 | 310.968 | -142.612 | 285.225 | 3.589 | 3 | 0.309 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 362.901 | 369.773 | -178.451 | 356.901 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 367.549 | 381.291 | -177.774 | 355.549 | 1.353 | 3 | 0.717 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 348.374 | 355.245 | -171.187 | 342.374 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 348.567 | 362.310 | -168.283 | 336.567 | 5.807 | 3 | 0.121 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 332.077 | 338.948 | -163.038 | 326.077 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 333.480 | 347.223 | -160.740 | 321.480 | 4.596 | 3 | 0.204 |
symptom | null | 3 | 513.159 | 520.031 | -253.580 | 507.159 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 515.775 | 529.518 | -251.888 | 503.775 | 3.384 | 3 | 0.336 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 412.907 | 419.779 | -203.454 | 406.907 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 417.867 | 431.609 | -202.933 | 405.867 | 1.041 | 3 | 0.791 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 453.798 | 460.670 | -223.899 | 447.798 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 458.246 | 471.989 | -223.123 | 446.246 | 1.552 | 3 | 0.670 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 483.774 | 490.645 | -238.887 | 477.774 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 486.176 | 499.919 | -237.088 | 474.176 | 3.598 | 3 | 0.308 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 380.508 | 387.380 | -187.254 | 374.508 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 383.967 | 397.709 | -185.983 | 371.967 | 2.542 | 3 | 0.468 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 442.429 | 449.300 | -218.214 | 436.429 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 446.705 | 460.448 | -217.353 | 434.705 | 1.723 | 3 | 0.632 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 469.956 | 476.827 | -231.978 | 463.956 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 474.963 | 488.706 | -231.481 | 462.963 | 0.993 | 3 | 0.803 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 415.570 | 422.442 | -204.785 | 409.570 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 418.548 | 432.290 | -203.274 | 406.548 | 3.023 | 3 | 0.388 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 359.337 | 366.209 | -176.669 | 353.337 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 362.598 | 376.341 | -175.299 | 350.598 | 2.739 | 3 | 0.434 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 358.364 | 365.236 | -176.182 | 352.364 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 361.540 | 375.283 | -174.770 | 349.540 | 2.825 | 3 | 0.419 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 370.934 | 377.805 | -182.467 | 364.934 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 368.871 | 382.614 | -178.436 | 356.871 | 8.063 | 3 | 0.045 |
els | null | 3 | 449.616 | 456.487 | -221.808 | 443.616 | |||
els | random | 6 | 449.397 | 463.140 | -218.699 | 437.397 | 6.218 | 3 | 0.101 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 506.326 | 513.197 | -250.163 | 500.326 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 509.114 | 522.857 | -248.557 | 497.114 | 3.212 | 3 | 0.360 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 424.174 | 431.045 | -209.087 | 418.174 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 423.657 | 437.399 | -205.828 | 411.657 | 6.517 | 3 | 0.089 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 384.472 | 391.344 | -189.236 | 378.472 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 388.076 | 401.819 | -188.038 | 376.076 | 2.396 | 3 | 0.494 |
shs | null | 3 | 494.023 | 500.895 | -244.012 | 488.023 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 494.824 | 508.566 | -241.412 | 482.824 | 5.200 | 3 | 0.158 |
esteem | null | 3 | 243.133 | 250.004 | -118.566 | 237.133 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 241.951 | 255.693 | -114.975 | 229.951 | 7.182 | 3 | 0.066 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 377.955 | 384.826 | -185.978 | 371.955 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 383.698 | 397.441 | -185.849 | 371.698 | 0.257 | 3 | 0.968 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 399.320 | 406.192 | -196.660 | 393.320 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 403.944 | 417.687 | -195.972 | 391.944 | 1.376 | 3 | 0.711 |
mlq | null | 3 | 478.573 | 485.444 | -236.286 | 472.573 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 484.031 | 497.774 | -236.015 | 472.031 | 0.542 | 3 | 0.910 |
empower | null | 3 | 382.599 | 389.470 | -188.299 | 376.599 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 387.696 | 401.439 | -187.848 | 375.696 | 0.902 | 3 | 0.825 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 344.203 | 351.074 | -169.101 | 338.203 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 349.326 | 363.069 | -168.663 | 337.326 | 0.877 | 3 | 0.831 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 367.814 | 374.685 | -180.907 | 361.814 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 367.844 | 381.586 | -177.922 | 355.844 | 5.970 | 3 | 0.113 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 383.472 | 390.343 | -188.736 | 377.472 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 388.042 | 401.784 | -188.021 | 376.042 | 1.430 | 3 | 0.698 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 393.834 | 400.705 | -193.917 | 387.834 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 397.575 | 411.317 | -192.787 | 385.575 | 2.259 | 3 | 0.520 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 392.989 | 399.861 | -193.495 | 386.989 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 397.794 | 411.537 | -192.897 | 385.794 | 1.195 | 3 | 0.754 |
sss | null | 3 | 531.878 | 538.750 | -262.939 | 525.878 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 537.037 | 550.780 | -262.519 | 525.037 | 0.841 | 3 | 0.840 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 25 | 3.24 ± 1.18 | 26 | 3.38 ± 1.18 | 0.663 | -0.169 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 11 | 3.89 ± 1.12 | -0.763 | 11 | 3.78 ± 1.12 | -0.456 | 0.805 | 0.139 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 25 | 18.28 ± 2.76 | 26 | 18.08 ± 2.76 | 0.794 | 0.118 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 11 | 18.29 ± 2.48 | -0.007 | 11 | 18.51 ± 2.48 | -0.252 | 0.837 | -0.127 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 25 | 30.32 ± 5.18 | 26 | 30.88 ± 5.18 | 0.698 | -0.193 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 11 | 31.05 ± 4.50 | -0.248 | 11 | 31.03 ± 4.47 | -0.051 | 0.995 | 0.004 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 25 | 12.36 ± 1.94 | 26 | 12.31 ± 1.94 | 0.923 | 0.049 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 11 | 11.56 ± 1.67 | 0.738 | 11 | 12.50 ± 1.66 | -0.179 | 0.193 | -0.868 |
ras_goal | 1st | 25 | 17.64 ± 3.11 | 26 | 17.77 ± 3.11 | 0.883 | -0.072 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 11 | 16.91 ± 2.72 | 0.407 | 11 | 18.00 ± 2.70 | -0.127 | 0.352 | -0.606 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 25 | 13.20 ± 2.97 | 26 | 13.58 ± 2.97 | 0.652 | -0.304 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 11 | 13.12 ± 2.34 | 0.063 | 11 | 14.74 ± 2.32 | -0.940 | 0.107 | -1.308 |
ras_domination | 1st | 25 | 10.72 ± 2.32 | 26 | 9.42 ± 2.32 | 0.050 | 0.736 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 11 | 10.25 ± 2.24 | 0.269 | 11 | 10.24 ± 2.24 | -0.461 | 0.992 | 0.006 |
symptom | 1st | 25 | 29.12 ± 9.99 | 26 | 30.62 ± 9.99 | 0.595 | -0.460 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 11 | 28.32 ± 7.44 | 0.245 | 11 | 28.31 ± 7.35 | 0.708 | 0.998 | 0.003 |
slof_work | 1st | 25 | 23.04 ± 4.76 | 26 | 22.38 ± 4.76 | 0.625 | 0.328 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 11 | 22.77 ± 3.76 | 0.134 | 11 | 21.77 ± 3.73 | 0.310 | 0.530 | 0.505 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 25 | 25.88 ± 6.01 | 26 | 25.92 ± 6.01 | 0.980 | -0.015 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 11 | 24.41 ± 4.99 | 0.495 | 11 | 25.60 ± 4.95 | 0.108 | 0.576 | -0.401 |
satisfaction | 1st | 25 | 19.32 ± 6.98 | 26 | 21.96 ± 6.98 | 0.182 | -0.649 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 11 | 21.65 ± 6.13 | -0.572 | 11 | 22.53 ± 6.10 | -0.140 | 0.736 | -0.217 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 25 | 10.96 ± 3.68 | 26 | 11.69 ± 3.68 | 0.481 | -0.433 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 11 | 11.86 ± 2.99 | -0.531 | 11 | 11.11 ± 2.96 | 0.343 | 0.558 | 0.441 |
mhc_social | 1st | 25 | 15.12 ± 5.37 | 26 | 14.58 ± 5.37 | 0.719 | 0.179 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 11 | 16.51 ± 4.66 | -0.457 | 11 | 14.90 ± 4.64 | -0.107 | 0.421 | 0.529 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 25 | 21.72 ± 6.57 | 26 | 22.46 ± 6.57 | 0.689 | -0.207 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 11 | 22.94 ± 5.64 | -0.340 | 11 | 21.79 ± 5.60 | 0.189 | 0.632 | 0.322 |
resilisnce | 1st | 25 | 16.68 ± 4.51 | 26 | 17.15 ± 4.51 | 0.709 | -0.200 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 11 | 17.59 ± 3.82 | -0.384 | 11 | 18.49 ± 3.79 | -0.562 | 0.583 | -0.378 |
social_provision | 1st | 25 | 13.40 ± 3.09 | 26 | 13.88 ± 3.09 | 0.577 | -0.304 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 11 | 12.92 ± 2.60 | 0.299 | 11 | 14.62 ± 2.58 | -0.461 | 0.129 | -1.065 |
els_value_living | 1st | 25 | 16.88 ± 3.03 | 26 | 17.50 ± 3.03 | 0.469 | -0.380 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 11 | 17.54 ± 2.59 | -0.404 | 11 | 18.21 ± 2.57 | -0.438 | 0.542 | -0.414 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 25 | 12.08 ± 3.19 | 26 | 13.88 ± 3.19 | 0.048 | -1.048 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 11 | 13.58 ± 2.72 | -0.874 | 11 | 14.27 ± 2.71 | -0.224 | 0.555 | -0.399 |
els | 1st | 25 | 28.96 ± 5.60 | 26 | 31.38 ± 5.60 | 0.128 | -0.842 | ||
els | 2nd | 11 | 31.08 ± 4.71 | -0.737 | 11 | 32.48 ± 4.68 | -0.379 | 0.489 | -0.484 |
social_connect | 1st | 25 | 26.96 ± 9.56 | 26 | 26.62 ± 9.56 | 0.898 | 0.111 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 11 | 28.76 ± 7.11 | -0.582 | 11 | 28.06 ± 7.02 | -0.467 | 0.817 | 0.226 |
shs_agency | 1st | 25 | 13.60 ± 4.76 | 26 | 14.81 ± 4.76 | 0.369 | -0.520 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 11 | 14.09 ± 3.93 | -0.213 | 11 | 16.90 ± 3.90 | -0.901 | 0.097 | -1.209 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 25 | 15.96 ± 3.73 | 26 | 17.15 ± 3.73 | 0.258 | -0.655 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 11 | 16.48 ± 3.08 | -0.284 | 11 | 17.68 ± 3.06 | -0.287 | 0.363 | -0.657 |
shs | 1st | 25 | 29.56 ± 7.88 | 26 | 31.96 ± 7.88 | 0.282 | -0.667 | ||
shs | 2nd | 11 | 30.49 ± 6.38 | -0.258 | 11 | 34.56 ± 6.33 | -0.721 | 0.138 | -1.130 |
esteem | 1st | 25 | 12.64 ± 1.20 | 26 | 12.42 ± 1.20 | 0.522 | 0.180 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 11 | 13.55 ± 1.24 | -0.753 | 11 | 12.91 ± 1.24 | -0.404 | 0.231 | 0.529 |
mlq_search | 1st | 25 | 15.12 ± 3.29 | 26 | 15.38 ± 3.29 | 0.775 | -0.110 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 11 | 15.52 ± 3.14 | -0.167 | 11 | 15.18 ± 3.14 | 0.085 | 0.798 | 0.143 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 25 | 14.16 ± 3.97 | 26 | 13.54 ± 3.97 | 0.578 | 0.267 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 11 | 14.81 ± 3.49 | -0.278 | 11 | 14.20 ± 3.48 | -0.283 | 0.683 | 0.262 |
mlq | 1st | 25 | 29.28 ± 6.74 | 26 | 28.92 ± 6.74 | 0.851 | 0.083 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 11 | 30.32 ± 6.11 | -0.242 | 11 | 29.37 ± 6.09 | -0.103 | 0.716 | 0.222 |
empower | 1st | 25 | 19.76 ± 4.21 | 26 | 19.96 ± 4.21 | 0.865 | -0.154 | ||
empower | 2nd | 11 | 20.09 ± 3.11 | -0.250 | 11 | 20.33 ± 3.07 | -0.284 | 0.853 | -0.188 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 25 | 14.84 ± 2.63 | 26 | 14.77 ± 2.63 | 0.924 | 0.039 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 11 | 15.45 ± 2.46 | -0.337 | 11 | 14.92 ± 2.45 | -0.084 | 0.614 | 0.292 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 25 | 12.20 ± 3.17 | 26 | 10.42 ± 3.17 | 0.051 | 1.050 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 11 | 11.01 ± 2.70 | 0.701 | 11 | 10.57 ± 2.68 | -0.090 | 0.703 | 0.260 |
sss_affective | 1st | 25 | 10.36 ± 4.10 | 26 | 9.23 ± 4.10 | 0.330 | 0.799 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 11 | 10.41 ± 3.09 | -0.034 | 11 | 8.93 ± 3.05 | 0.209 | 0.264 | 1.042 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 25 | 10.28 ± 4.17 | 26 | 8.88 ± 4.17 | 0.237 | 0.815 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 11 | 9.57 ± 3.27 | 0.417 | 11 | 8.89 ± 3.24 | -0.002 | 0.626 | 0.397 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 25 | 8.20 ± 4.21 | 26 | 8.08 ± 4.21 | 0.917 | 0.074 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 11 | 8.89 ± 3.28 | -0.410 | 11 | 7.88 ± 3.25 | 0.116 | 0.473 | 0.600 |
sss | 1st | 25 | 28.84 ± 11.63 | 26 | 26.19 ± 11.63 | 0.420 | 0.714 | ||
sss | 2nd | 11 | 28.91 ± 8.62 | -0.018 | 11 | 25.76 ± 8.51 | 0.116 | 0.392 | 0.849 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(61.71) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.80)
2st
t(64.75) = -0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.84)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(58.11) = -0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.35)
2st
t(65.18) = 0.21, p = 0.837, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.33)
ras_confidence
1st
t(56.35) = 0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.47)
2st
t(66.25) = -0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.83 to 3.81)
ras_willingness
1st
t(56.10) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.03)
2st
t(66.44) = 1.32, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.36)
ras_goal
1st
t(56.62) = 0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.87)
2st
t(66.05) = 0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.39)
ras_reliance
1st
t(52.79) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.04)
2st
t(68.99) = 1.63, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -1.31, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.60)
ras_domination
1st
t(62.95) = -2.00, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.00)
2st
t(65.06) = -0.01, p = 0.992, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.92 to 1.90)
symptom
1st
t(51.23) = 0.53, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-4.12 to 7.11)
2st
t(67.19) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-6.30 to 6.28)
slof_work
1st
t(52.81) = -0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.33 to 2.02)
2st
t(68.99) = -0.63, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-4.19 to 2.18)
slof_relationship
1st
t(54.43) = 0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.33 to 3.42)
2st
t(67.93) = 0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-3.04 to 5.42)
satisfaction
1st
t(56.85) = 1.35, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.28 to 6.56)
2st
t(65.89) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-4.32 to 6.09)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(53.66) = 0.71, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.80)
2st
t(68.58) = -0.59, p = 0.558, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.28 to 1.79)
mhc_social
1st
t(56.35) = -0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.55 to 2.47)
2st
t(66.25) = -0.81, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.56 to 2.35)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(55.77) = 0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.95 to 4.43)
2st
t(66.72) = -0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-5.94 to 3.63)
resilisnce
1st
t(55.26) = 0.38, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.00)
2st
t(67.17) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.34 to 4.13)
social_provision
1st
t(54.99) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.22)
2st
t(67.41) = 1.54, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -1.06, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.90)
els_value_living
1st
t(55.57) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)
2st
t(66.89) = 0.61, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.87)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(55.64) = 2.02, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.02 to 3.59)
2st
t(66.83) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.00)
els
1st
t(54.96) = 1.55, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.72 to 5.57)
2st
t(67.45) = 0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.60 to 5.39)
social_connect
1st
t(51.21) = -0.13, p = 0.898, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-5.72 to 5.03)
2st
t(67.13) = -0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-6.71 to 5.31)
shs_agency
1st
t(54.31) = 0.91, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.88)
2st
t(68.04) = 1.68, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (-0.53 to 6.14)
shs_pathway
1st
t(54.35) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.29)
2st
t(68.01) = 0.92, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.81)
shs
1st
t(53.60) = 1.09, p = 0.282, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-2.03 to 6.83)
2st
t(68.62) = 1.50, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-1.34 to 9.47)
esteem
1st
t(69.00) = -0.64, p = 0.522, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.45)
2st
t(69.00) = -1.21, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.42)
mlq_search
1st
t(61.84) = 0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.11)
2st
t(64.78) = -0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.02 to 2.33)
mlq_presence
1st
t(56.96) = -0.56, p = 0.578, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.85 to 1.61)
2st
t(65.81) = -0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.58 to 2.36)
mlq
1st
t(58.53) = -0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-4.14 to 3.42)
2st
t(65.01) = -0.37, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-6.15 to 4.25)
empower
1st
t(51.01) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.17 to 2.57)
2st
t(66.45) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.87)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(60.38) = -0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.40)
2st
t(64.66) = -0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.56)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(55.45) = -2.00, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 1.05, 95% CI (-3.56 to 0.00)
2st
t(67.00) = -0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.73 to 1.85)
sss_affective
1st
t(51.52) = -0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.17)
2st
t(67.94) = -1.13, p = 0.264, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-4.08 to 1.14)
sss_behavior
1st
t(52.66) = -1.20, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.74 to 0.95)
2st
t(69.00) = -0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.45 to 2.09)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(52.40) = -0.10, p = 0.917, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.49 to 2.24)
2st
t(68.95) = -0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.77)
sss
1st
t(51.14) = -0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-9.19 to 3.89)
2st
t(66.89) = -0.86, p = 0.392, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-10.44 to 4.14)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(29.04) = 1.14, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.09)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(25.98) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.88)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(24.68) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.63)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(24.51) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.11)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(24.87) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.74)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(22.29) = 2.25, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.24)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(30.27) = 1.16, p = 0.508, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.24)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(21.32) = -1.68, p = 0.216, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.55)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(22.30) = -0.74, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.35 to 1.11)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(23.36) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.86 to 2.22)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(25.04) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.87 to 4.01)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(22.85) = -0.82, p = 0.838, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.88)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(24.68) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.90)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(24.27) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.72 to 2.37)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(23.92) = 1.36, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.69 to 3.35)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(23.74) = 1.11, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.09)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(24.13) = 1.06, p = 0.598, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(24.18) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.85)
els
1st vs 2st
t(23.71) = 0.92, p = 0.739, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.55)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(21.31) = 1.11, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.27 to 4.16)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(23.28) = 2.17, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.10 to 4.09)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(23.30) = 0.69, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.09)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(22.81) = 1.73, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.51 to 5.70)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(42.86) = 1.10, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.38)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(29.17) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.17 to 1.76)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(25.12) = 0.69, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.62)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(26.32) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-3.14 to 4.02)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(21.19) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.52)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(27.84) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.65)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(24.05) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.59)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(21.50) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.94)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(22.20) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.49)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(22.04) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.26)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(21.26) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.68 to 2.82)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(28.72) = 1.91, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.35)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(25.78) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.46)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(24.53) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.76 to 3.21)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(24.36) = -1.79, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.12)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(24.71) = -0.99, p = 0.663, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.79)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(22.22) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.00)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(29.89) = -0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.96)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(21.28) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.65 to 2.05)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(22.23) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.46)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(23.25) = -1.19, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-4.01 to 1.08)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(24.87) = 1.39, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.77)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(22.76) = 1.27, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.36)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(24.53) = 1.11, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.19 to 3.96)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(24.13) = 0.82, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.83 to 4.27)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(23.79) = 0.93, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.94)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(23.61) = -0.72, p = 0.954, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.89)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(24.00) = 0.98, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.05)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(24.05) = 2.12, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.97)
els
1st vs 2st
t(23.59) = 1.78, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.59)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(21.27) = 1.38, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.91 to 4.52)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(23.17) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.49)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(23.19) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.09)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(22.72) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.18 to 4.04)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(41.97) = 2.04, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.80)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(28.84) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.37)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(24.95) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.61)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(26.10) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.62)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(21.15) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.47)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(27.56) = 0.84, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.11)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(23.92) = -1.70, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.63 to 0.26)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(21.45) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.28)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(22.13) = -0.99, p = 0.661, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.77)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(21.98) = 0.98, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.14)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(21.23) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-3.18 to 3.32)
Plot
